Kartik Mahto and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The Appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 15th February, 2011, passed in W.P. (C) No. 3919 of 2009, whereby the writ petition filed by the Petitioners, has been dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the land was acquired in the year 1988-89 and thereafter, for the same purpose, some more land was acquired even in the year 2008. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that in view of the policy decision (Annexure-1), dated 13.09.2003, under Clause 3.2, family has been defined and in Clause 3.2 (Kha), it has been given out that every adult boy of the family will be treated as a separate family. It is submitted that initially, there were 96 families displaced, who were entitled to be rehabilitated and subsequent to that, it was found that there were six more families and out of those 95 families have been rehabilitated. It is submitted that subsequent to that year 1988-89 and till the rehabilitation is completed, a number of boys above the age of 18 years increased and therefore, all those boys who attained the age of 18 years and above during the process of rehabilitation, became entitled to the plots. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that because of this reason only, the allotment of area of the allotted land was decreased because of increase in number of claimants for the land. Learned Counsel for the Appellants pointed out that the decision was taken at the level of the Principal Secretary indicating that since the rehabilitation has not been completed due to increase of the children of eligible age, they may also be treated as a separate family for the purpose of allotment of land. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further submits that since it was the decision taken by the policy framers, they are bound by their policy decision and the writ Petitioners were entitled to the allotment of land.

We perused the facts of the case and found that the land was acquired for public purpose in the year 1988-89 and acquisition was not challenged.

However, in larger public interest, a policy decision was taken by the Government which is apparent from Annexure-1, wherein, it is clearly provided that what shall be the family and even a boy of 18 years will be treated as a separate family. The rights of the parties accrued on the day when they were displaced, their property cannot increase because of attaining more age subsequent to cut off date and increase of the family members subsequent to that date and the process cannot be made a continuous process of increasing of members making them eligible for allotment of the land. The process continued from 1988-89 according to the Petitioners and it is still continuing. Therefore, it means that during the period of 1988-89, till today in the last 22 years, if anybody has born will get the land and this cannot be a policy decision in any manner and we do not find that it is the policy decision at all from Annexure-1. Learned Counsel for the Appellants drew our attention to Annexure-3, which is termed as ''Prativedan'', which appears to be a Report given only by a Rehabilitation Officer of the Irrigation Project of Ranchi and we do not find that this fact supports the claim of any of the Appellants who were not entitled to any advantage at the relevant point of time and to the land. We do not find any merit in this Appeal.

Hence, this Appeal is dismissed.